[TRONto]

Yea i know, I think what I was trying to say was that not a majority of riders will actually use a crosstown LRT line to ride "across town", even though the line crosses the entire city. Most would hop on and off at random points. I think it's great to build these "crosstown" LRT lines across the city's busiest throughfares so as long as it attracts high local ridership along most of the line (and we already see that with the bus services on routes like Finch, so great!); although there will be a rare rider that travels great distances on it (me, I'd do that for fun), most of these commuters would opt for faster services, like some proposed Sheppard RT like rainforest said, the 407 busway or whatever northern GTA rapid transit line is planned. We don't need to slap super-fast rapid transit on every corridor.

And on a side note since you mentioned Melbourne, I'd love to see the TTC take some inspiration from how streetcars are run in Melbourne. Hook turns, *full* transit malls, ROWs, and temporary ROWs during rush hour would be nice to have

I think this is the point that has been missed by some. The major routes have a high ridership and the majority of riders are not going across the whole line. I'd guess that you have less than 5% going more than 75% of any east-west route with 80% heading downtown. I've done a few of the routes on a daily basis for work and there wasn't many doing the same trip I was doing.

 

[ARG1]

The tram loop in the inner-city is literally a tourist service. All tram routes except two are radial/end up on one of the CBD's main streets - there is very little inner-city crosstown connectivity with the tram network at present.

I'm talking about the Melbourne Underground City Loop, not the Tram Loop

Sydney is still building radial train lines for its inner/middle/outer suburbs - the first "metro" line (the automated/driverless one) is just like any old suburban railway in Australia - just using latest metro tech. They also still have large gaps on the map - namely the lower north-shore and northern beaches (North sweeping to north-east of the Sydney CBD). Sydney's existing network is great for non-CBD related travel in the west/south-west, but is flakey elsewhere (although the first metro is plugging a gap in the north-west - the north-east gap still exists).

Yes, the initial segment is only what the Sydney Trains served previously. Perhaps you should take a look at what's under construction at this very moment?

All train services except for 1-2 lines, currently, loop around the CBD, but that's evolving with the first major change in 2025 with Melbourne Metro (de-looping 3 lines and joining them + building a new branch [airport] for a ~100km long line [in places]), and there are at least 2 major de-looping projects on the cards but not funded. The other projects are Melbourne Metro 2 which would link one line in the north-east with one in the west via Fishermans Bend, the second major project would alter two of the existing four loops to run as a proper track pair and join one of the southern lines with one of the northern lines.

That's my point. Melbourne has historically a very poor connectivity to the CBD with the rail. It would be like if the GO Train in Toronto had all of the Smart-Track and GO expansion stations built, but the only way to then access many parts of the CBD were to use the Streetcars. No Subway in sight.

 

[tayser]

I'm talking about the Melbourne Underground City Loop, not the Tram Loop

Yes, the initial segment is only what the Sydney Trains served previously. Perhaps you should take a look at what's under construction at this very moment?

That's my point. Melbourne has historically a very poor connectivity to the CBD with the rail. It would be like if the GO Train in Toronto had all of the Smart-Track and GO expansion stations built, but the only way to then access many parts of the CBD were to use the Streetcars. No Subway in sight.

"solely radial regional trains" and "cross town trams" in both cases is false - there is a distinction between regional and metropolitan train services and the entirely separate tram network here - you conflated them, I just pointed that out.

The "initial" segment of the first Sydney Metro Line is both a greenfields line through the middle/outer north-western suburbs and re-use of an existing tunnel built a decade ago ("Chatswood-Epping rail link"). The second phase will be a new greenfields line across the harbour and city surfacing on the southern side where they are converting an existing line between Sydenham and Bankstown.

"Melbourne has historically a very poor connectivity to the CBD with the rail" makes zero sense. The entirety of our network has traditionally been set up to serve the centre of the city (and it does that job exceptionally well from inner, middle or outer suburbs in all directions from the CBD - middle/outer suburb to middle/outer suburb connections are poor in Melbourne as you need to travel via the CBD to do it, and the SRL will counter this but more importantly open up areas with high concentration of jobs/patronage generators that are currently nestled in between the predominantly radial network).

 

[afransen]

I think this is the point that has been missed by some. The major routes have a high ridership and the majority of riders are not going across the whole line. I'd guess that you have less than 5% going more than 75% of any east-west route with 80% heading downtown. I've done a few of the routes on a daily basis for work and there wasn't many doing the same trip I was doing.

Hence why I think it is 'spin' to call these crosstown routes. They can still be useful, but their utility is almost solely as local service and feeder lines. There are people who travel cross-town, but they aren't using transit.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Hence why I think it is 'spin' to call these crosstown routes. They can still be useful, but their utility is almost solely as local service and feeder lines. There are people who travel cross-town, but they aren't using transit.

See link.

The Midtown could connect the Kipling Transit Hub with the Don Mills (AKA Science Centre) Transit Hub, bypassing downtown (though there would be transfer connections with Casa Loma [Dupont] and North Toronto [Summerhill]).

 

[11th]

... or even wants to drive cross-town. Transit is often faster. On the rare occasion I've driven cross-town near Bloor-Danforth to save a few minutes ... I've failed to save any. And I doubt that driving across Eglinton would be faster than the subway. I've tried it a couple of times, coming in from the west when Gardiner and 401 are both a complete parking and there aren't any other great options ... works, but there's little point to it other than I started deep in 905.

Driving out to the burbs is a different issue - especially off-peak.

Transit (specifically with rail modes) is only slower usually because of the time spent on the last mile; otherwise it's quite competitive to automobiles, especially during rush/inclement weather.

 

[slapped_chicken]

That's my point. Melbourne has historically a very poor connectivity to the CBD with the rail. It would be like if the GO Train in Toronto had all of the Smart-Track and GO expansion stations built, but the only way to then access many parts of the CBD were to use the Streetcars. No Subway in sight.

Actually I don't know if it would be comparable. If we took away the Toronto subway, Melbourne would have far better CBD access than Toronto. Our regional rail sits on only one corridor on the south edge of the CBD at one station; Melbourne's sits at the east, south, and west edges of the CBD, and tunnels under and through the northern part (where Melbourne Central is - which is more centrally situated in their CBD than our Union). Melbourne also has a better streetcar grid in the core than Toronto, that is largely in their own ROW or in transit mall. Once the metro tunnel is finished I'd even argue that Melbourne's CBD has better transit access than Toronto overall, lol.

Anyways back on topic; what I consider a crosstown line may be different from another person's. I call it crosstown because it physically crosses most of the city; but not because people will use it to get across the city. Of course, for other people a crosstown line means a line that is meant to be used to get across the city - like said Midtown Corridor, the SRL, or Crossrail. Which in that case you wouldn't want to call an extended Finch LRT a "crosstown". Just a naming issue, I guess.

 

[INTz]

Metrolinx Press Room

Find the latest Metrolinx news, project updates and more.

blog.metrolinx.com

 

[superelevation]

There are lots of places that are building LRT lines and networks that cross cites. A few examples in the UK are Manchester and Nottingham. In Australia you have Melbourne which has a very large tram network then you also have Sydney that is building a few more lines as well. In the US Seattle and Portland both have fairly large LRT networks too.

The UK is not a model for transit on a city per city basis, London is a model. Manchester with its 8 "LRT" lines carries less than a third what the Toronto Streetcars carry (and they don't even carry what Line 1 carries). Sydney is building some streetcar like lines in dense downtown areas, the vast majority of their investment is in Metro atm. Seattle is ok, but it's system is really much more like the O-Train - they build an at grade section on the initial line and ever since have basically grade separated as extensively as possible (lots of tunnels and elevated guideways). Portland looks good on a map, but the system is not all that fast or frequent - which I would argue is the general trend for LRT (it hopefully costs less - though projects like Canada Line and REM are built cheaper per km than our LRT's) so your map looks great but on the ground the transit is not all that good.

Transit (specifically with rail modes) is only slower usually because of the time spent on the last mile; otherwise it's quite competitive to automobiles, especially during rush/inclement weather.

Ok, so why can't it be faster? Why is as fast as a car the model? The amazing thing about a metro is that you can fly past all the gridlock and traffic. This is less the case with LRT which sticks to road speeds and doesn't always get priority.

 

[superelevation]

For everyone saying that LRT's will be great for local travel it doesn't really make sense, we have among the best bus services in North America and or the world for local travel (in the city) - why do we need to invest in something which we already have. Will people going from say, Vic Park to Yonge not appreciate a trip which is twice as fast? You don't have to cross the city to see the travel time benefits of grade separation.

Its especially odd that now people are talking about an eventual "orbital line", currently the only efficient way of quickly crossing Toronto is line 2 or GO, if you go North of Bloor your best option quickly becomes ride a bus to the subway, ride the subway, get on another bus. Why couldn't we just do Eglinton right - we got like 60% there.

 

[afransen]

For everyone saying that LRT's will be great for local travel it doesn't really make sense, we have among the best bus services in North America and or the world for local travel (in the city) - why do we need to invest in something which we already have. Will people going from say, Vic Park to Yonge not appreciate a trip which is twice as fast? You don't have to cross the city to see the travel time benefits of grade separation.

Its especially odd that now people are talking about an eventual "orbital line", currently the only efficient way of quickly crossing Toronto is line 2 or GO, if you go North of Bloor your best option quickly becomes ride a bus to the subway, ride the subway, get on another bus. Why couldn't we just do Eglinton right - we got like 60% there.

The ship has sailed on doing Eglinton 'right'. We should have got a Crosstown metro line, we instead got a confused only-partially grade separated but still very expensive LRT. Buses could make more sense, and maybe a better solution than Crosstown would have been a BRT until we were ready to build a real rapid transit line. Maybe with a cut and cover tunnel with battery electric buses in the middle section.

 

[Tuck]

For everyone saying that LRT's will be great for local travel it doesn't really make sense, we have among the best bus services in North America and or the world for local travel (in the city) - why do we need to invest in something which we already have. Will people going from say, Vic Park to Yonge not appreciate a trip which is twice as fast? You don't have to cross the city to see the travel time benefits of grade separation.

Its especially odd that now people are talking about an eventual "orbital line", currently the only efficient way of quickly crossing Toronto is line 2 or GO, if you go North of Bloor your best option quickly becomes ride a bus to the subway, ride the subway, get on another bus. Why couldn't we just do Eglinton right - we got like 60% there.

Preach.

What happened on Eglinton is a damn shame. Yet somehow, so very Toronto.

 

[syn]

Victoria Park to Yonge is only 9 stops, 4 of which are underground. If you want to go downtown, it's only 4 stops to the Science Centre, which connects to the OL/DRL.

Putting it all underground will not result in a trip that's twice as fast.

An LRT has much higher capacity than a bus route - that's its value.

 

[ARG1]

Victoria Park to Yonge is only 9 stops, 4 of which are underground. If you want to go downtown, it's only 4 stops to the Science Centre, which connects to the OL/DRL.

Putting it all underground will not result in a trip that's twice as fast.

An LRT has much higher capacity than a bus route - that's it's value.

But for a similar/cheaper price and the same capacity you could build a light metro like the Canada Line that will be faster and more enjoyable to ride on.

 

[Steve X]

For everyone saying that LRT's will be great for local travel it doesn't really make sense, we have among the best bus services in North America and or the world for local travel (in the city) - why do we need to invest in something which we already have. Will people going from say, Vic Park to Yonge not appreciate a trip which is twice as fast? You don't have to cross the city to see the travel time benefits of grade separation.

Its especially odd that now people are talking about an eventual "orbital line", currently the only efficient way of quickly crossing Toronto is line 2 or GO, if you go North of Bloor your best option quickly becomes ride a bus to the subway, ride the subway, get on another bus. Why couldn't we just do Eglinton right - we got like 60% there.

A bus line doesn't bring reliability nor development. I think glorified streetcars are great for suburb development minus the fact that the transportation department won't grant it transit priority. If people stop going half way across the city and instead stay in their neighbourhood, we won't need the so called "fast" transit. If the surface section is able to develop the Golden Miles strip, I would say that is a success.

Personally I think grid systems are the worst. They should just build a diagonal line like the Expo line in Vancouver.